State Of Mah. Thr. Collector, ... vs Shantaram Vishwasrao Parimal, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1042 Bom

                                                                                      Fa1329.09
                                                 1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                      
                              NAGPUR.

                       FIRST   APPEAL     NO.   1329     OF     2009




                                                              
    1] State of Maharashtra 




                                                             
    through Collector, 
    Amravati. 

    2] Special Land Acquisition
    Officer, Minor Irrigation




                                               
    Works, Amravati. 

    3] Executive Engineer, 
    Minor Irrigation Work,
                             
    Local Circle Division, 
                            
    Amravati.                                                              APPELLANTS.

                                              VERSUS
      


    Shantaram Vishwasrao 
    Parimal, aged 54 yrs.
   



    Occu. Service, R/o 
    Badnera Road, Amravati.                                                RESPONDENT.

Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants. Ms. Deepali Sapkal Advocate h/f Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent.

                             CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               





                                      Dated    :   MARCH  31, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the

Reference Court dated 04.08.2004 in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2001

Fa1329.09

whereby the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/- per

hectare.

2] The land admeasuring 3 H 92 R owned by the respondent

situated at Mouza Adgaon Buzruk was the subject matter of acquisition in

proceedings under the said Act. The Notification under Section 4 of the said

Act is dated 22.02.1999 and the award was passed on 21.02.2001. The Land

Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per

hectare. Being aggrieved the respondent filed reference under Section 18 of

the said Act. After considering the evidence on record the Reference Court

enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. Hence this appeal.

3] Shri M. A. Kadu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the appellants submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in

enhancing the amount of compensation. According to him there was no

evidence on record to justify the enhancement in the amount of

compensation. The sale instances relied upon by the respondent could not

have been taken into consideration as they had been executed on the same

day. It was therefore submitted that in absence of any satisfactory evidence

the compensation could not have been enhanced.

4] Ms. Sapkal, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the

impugned judgment. It was submitted that the sale instances were dated

07.05.1995 wherein the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per hectare.

She submitted that in fact the Reference Court ought to have granted higher

compensation considering the fact that the sale instances were of the year

Fa1329.09

1997. It was therefore submitted that there was no reason to interfere with

the impugned award.

5] I have gone through the records of the case and I have given due

consideration to the respective submissions. The following point arises for

determination:

Whether any case is made out to interfere with the impugned award?

6] The Reference Court while enhancing the amount of

compensation has taken into consideration four sale deeds at Exs. 27 to 30

which were executed on 07.05.1997. The land therein was sold at the rate of

Rs. 85,000/- per hectare. The evidence on record further indicates that the

sale instances were of the lands which were in the vicinity of the acquired

land. It is on this basis the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to

Rs. 85,000/- per hectare.

7] The Reference Court further considered the fact that the sale

instances were of the year 1997 while the Notification under Section 4 of the

said Act was dated 22.02.1999. It however did not enhance the amount of

compensation despite noticing the difference in the period of sale instances

and the date of the Notification.

8] It is therefore clear that all relevant aspects have been taken into

consideration by the Reference Court while enhancing the compensation.

The point as framed is answered by holding that there is no reason to

interfere with the impugned award.

9] In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed by

Fa1329.09

the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2001 stands

confirmed. First appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

svk